A Publication of
the Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty

Clintonís Weed-whacker

January 6, 2001

I used to think that any fool would know the difference between an FBI investigation
and a real U.S. military action, but thatís before the Clinton administration.
Eight years of Bill and Hillary Clinton forever changed my views about
the political world.

I used to think liberals were interesting, and in a way entertaining.
Today I have concluded that if theyíre in power, theyíre dangerous to
the national security. But even more dangerous are the ignorant citizens
who vote for liberal policies. Why? Because they are "used"
by dishonest politicians seeking to move a flawed and failed agenda forward.

There were many lessons along the way that should have changed my "Pollyanna"
views about the general level of intelligence of our average citizens.
For example, my FBI cases usually ended up in courtroom battles, and the
make-up of the average jury pool should have alerted me that there are
a lot of "picnics" out there shy a couple of sandwiches.

I mean, folks on most juries  the ones who are not excused because
they have "lives"  know more about soap operas and MTV
than how to deal with terrorists. But, on the other hand, the U.S. government
is paid big tax bucks to handle "threats foreign and domestic,"
so who can blame jurists who havenít a clue about major issues of the
day?

Actually, thatís not entirely fair to the people who are called to serve
on juries. Defense attorneys are notorious for seeking the dumbest jurists
they can find in the jury pool. That a few intelligent, normal people
survive the cut to go on to be jury forepersons is miraculous, considering
how badly the deck is stacked against the prosecutors in our criminal
"injustice" system.

OK, letís assume the 40 percent of us who vote  but are clueless
 are willing to learn and could benefit from some rudimentary education
about the differences between liberals and conservatives. After more than
30 years in government service, much of it around politicians, this is
what I have learned  and maybe you can pass this on to a liberal
friend or relative:

Liberals love symbolism and good intentions, but they donít care much
about solving problems, as long as some effort is made. Because liberals
donít require real solutions, they have learned how to "create"
a crisis where none exists because they know they will never be expected
to solve any. Liberals also brag endlessly about their efforts to solve
problems, and theyíre always "working so hard on the peopleís behalf,"
and especially "for the children."

The crisis du jour demonizes their political enemies, propels their political
agenda, and keeps them in power which is their real agenda.

On the other hand, conservatives are problem solvers and if thereís a
real problem, theyíll eventually solve it. But, conservatives are too
slow to claim credit, especially when they enjoy large victories. Thatís
because conservatives donít like to brag.

Conservatives hate meetings and "process" and they are not
good at attending endless conferences where nothing is decided, but where
everyone gets a chance to pontificate. Liberals, in contrast, live for
such useless and time-consuming meetings.

I never met a real conservative who didnít have "ants in the pants."
Conservatives are impatient to solve real problems. Why? So that they
can get on to the next problem, of course.

Liberals, however, have their "hands in your pants" to
get your money. Theyíve also had their slimy hands in the pants of too
many young interns, if Ted Kennedy, Clinton and Condit are typical of
liberals.

Let me use Bill Clinton and terrorism as a real-time example to underscore
important differences between liberals and conservatives. Recent articles
in two of our most liberal newspapers attempt to catalog Clintonís efforts
to fight terrorism by describing endless, meaningless conferences where
terrorist activities and possible solutions were talked  or I should
say lawyered  to death. But as we now know, nothing much was actually
done.

The Washington Post went so far as to call this liberal exercise,
"Clintonís war on terrorism." They totally ignore the fact that
before George W. Bush coined the phrase, nobody had even heard about a
"War on Terrorism." Any half-brain knows Bill Clinton only had
an "Investigation on Terrorism"  and there is a big difference.

Recall that every time Osama bin Laden attacked our nation, Bill Clinton
called Janet Reno and had her send some FBI agents out to investigate.
Even when the attack was launched on foreign soil against our State Department,
or our U.S. Navy, Clinton had Reno send the FBI.

Hereís an analogy: Letís say that there is a tree in the forest that
needs to be cut down. Your choice of tools will either be a weed-whacker
or a chain saw. Of course, the weed-whacker symbolizes the FBI, whereas
the chain saw represents the U.S. Department of Defense.

Now, if you attack the offending tree with that weed-whacker, it will
take many years to cut it down  and maybe while youíre trying, the
tree will fall on you. But, if youíre "slick" enough, the tree
will fall on the poor chump who comes after you.

Of course, the weed-whacker is the safer choice, because chain saws are
dangerous  they can backlash. A liberal will choose the safer tool
every time  because they can appear to be doing something 
and if theyíre lucky, the tree will not fall on them. Even if it does,
they can always blame somebody or something else, such as the owner of
the forest, or the manufacturer of the weed-whacker.

Conservatives know that if you pick up that chain saw and get right to
work on that tree, within a very short time youíll hear, "Timber!"
The truth that liberals donít want you to know is when Osama bin Laden
sent his terrorists to attack the USS Cole  and killed 17 U.S. sailors
 Clinton once again ran to his tool shed and grabbed his weed-whacker.

A real U.S. president wouldíve oiled up his biggest chain saw, and he
would not have spent a lot of time talking about what had to be done next.

And thatís exactly what happened. That real presidentís name is George
W. Bush. Any questions?